Since some people call me the greatest philosopher of the twenty first century, it is time to weight in on this matter.

I quote-

We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.

While no one has, to the best of knowledge, called me the greatest philologist of the twenty first century, my need for specifics and accuracy is well known. My first issue is-the biblical definition of the family unit. I do not know which bible he is referring, because he does not state which version and, more importantly, if he is using a translation. The manner of quote is implied that there is only one bible, which is incorrect.

My second issue is that, of all the bible versions I have read, I have never seen a definition of a family. Assuming Mr. Cathy means the King James version, then I have read of brother/sister marriage (Abraham/Sarah) and polygamy (insert a king that had more than one wife((Solomon had over 500)).

In the NT, neither Jesus nor Saint Paul defines a marriage. All the marriages cited in the NT presumably include only one man and one woman. The presumption is not certain. Gentiles were never under the Law, and Saint Paul argues we should not fall under the Judaizing influence. Saint John Chrysostom agrees.

I do not know why any Christian would support the family, as married people do not go to heaven-only male virgins from the 12 tribes are allowed into Heaven. (per the Book of Revelation) I am glad I am a Gentile Christian. Althought the Law forbids homosexuality between human males (Jehovah doesn't mention female homosexuality), it does not logically preclude relations between demiurge and creation. The reward of Revelation seems to be an eternity of demiurgic buggery, but that is another post and another reason the Orthodox Church does not quote from this book, even thought most the NT is read throughout the year.

Mr. Cathy is a bible believing Christian. Ever since Erasmus created the bible in 1516, more people are becoming hypocrites than ever before. To do one thing and say the opposite is hypocritical. To state that one attempts to believe two opposites as a whole (Jehovah, the tribal deity and Jesus, universal savior) is psychotic and will lead to neuroses.

In conclusion, these "Christians" are on the loosing side of history. (Historically, Americans extend rights, not restrict them.) Gentle reader, as we learn in Titus Andronicus, let the laws determine all.